Hi Claythrow, I'm not upset at all, I like the chance to share info here. And judging from your post you weren't aware of the info I gave here about whales, because all of it is of a more recent date than the scientists you quoted who said that they were wanting to see more transitional forms. Why give those quotes if you were aware of the info I posted above?

Longisquama insignis, well that's an interesting one. It's causing a lot of debate. Again, this is science at its best, looking at new evidence and considering whether current views need to be modified. There are a lot of problems with this though, as I'm sure you are aware. Even a fervent critic of accepted avian origins, Dr. Alan Feduccia, felt after careful study that he could only say, "the exact relationship of longisquama to birds is uncertain."

Another problem is that there is a lack of evolutionary lineage from longisquama. Also, according to several paleontologists, the 'feathers' on longisquama may simply be folds of skin, likely used for gliding. Others claim that the 'feathers' are acutally ferns fossilized along with the Longisquama skeleton. Still others say that the 'feathers' are simply skin flaps like those seen on moths. In fact, two of North America's most renowned paleontologists, Dr. Chris Brochu of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and Dr. Hans Dieter Sues of the Royal Ontario Museum have studied the specimen and believe that the appendages are absolutely not feathers, or nothing even close to them.

Even if longisquama did possess feathers, Dr. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History reasons, that doesn't mean that longisquama is an evolutionary ancestor to modern birds. Norell points out that the feathered dinosaurs of China actually lived after the first true birds developed. In other words, possibly these 'feathers' on longisquama evolved independently of the avian lineage for other reasons, possibly for insulation or sexual display.

My personal feelings are that the discovery of more fossils of this species, in better condition, will shed light on this.

While I find this debate interesting, I do not see how it has anything to do with proving that evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Scientists looking at available and emerging evidence, and debating about it, is not quite the same as a massive blow being dealt to the whole idea of evolution. The creationist approach seems to be to search for something that would prove to be this "massive blow," and thinking that any area of uncertainty might fit that category.

Primordial soup to flying creatures in a few billion years? This is the same "argument of incredulity" that Russ presented earlier. I explained this in my post to him, as well as how genetic variation and natural selection are not pure chance. I'm sorry if this seems incredible, I guess that's up to you to come to terms with for yourself. Study evolution a little more, rather than just the twisted facts and idiot statements creationist "leaders" make, and maybe you'll lose some of it.

Can you explain what you mean by partially formed species? I take it you are meaning something different than transitional forms?

A parent and daughter species both being present at the same time is not proof that evolution is wrong. The parent species does not always become extinct; or if it does, it very often won't happen straight away.

The small hind legs of the whale, it seems logical to conclude, were vestigial; and their remaining functions were slightly different for males and females. You say that if they were not used in copulation then there would have been no reason for them. Well maybe they were used in copulation, or for something else. Try using your imagination. Just because you personally can't think of any other use for them doesn't mean there wasn't one.

You can look at any two transitional forms and say there's no proof that "this turned into that" because you want to see more forms in between. We are finding more transitional forms all the time. The fossil record is incomplete. And sometimes species seem to make small leaps in their evolution, though there is debate about this, and each instance obviously needs close individual study. Sayins "this could not have evolved into that" when there is good evidence for it, is simply evidence of a closed mind that does not want to accept the idea of evolution full stop. With this mindset it is unlikely you will ever be satisfied with the evidence that is presented to you.

Are you saying you really want more fossil evidence then? Creationists seem to want to "explain it away" (using Russ' terminology) whenever there is new evidence for some facet of evolution. I would have thought they had no interest in making new discoveries of this kind. If you are convinced that evolution is hokum and that there are no true transitional forms, why go looking for them?